What does this even mean really? That they did a bunch of research and instead of writing numerous papers wrong a single book? Does it give a detailed explanation of each experiment enough so that they can be repeated? Or is it like those pop-sci books that take a few specifically picked studies, a lot of anecdotes, and a few 'expert' interviews and try to get the average reader convinced on a point (which may or may not be correct)?
I gotta say my enthusiasm is significantly dulled.
I prefer scientific articles, because they tend to be peer-reviewed, and have a testable null hypothesis.
Its also why I avoid books like outliers by malcolm gladwell.
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll probably check it out eventually.